On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 06:01:50 PM Alexandre Viau wrote:
> From the patch:
> > - putting the team in the Maintainers field is a strong statement that
> > fully collaborative maintenance is preferred. Anyone can commit to the
> > git repository and upload as needed. A courtesy email to Uploaders can
>
Dimitry,
On 19/01/16 05:57 PM, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 10:06:47 AM Alexandre Viau wrote:
>> You may consider some of your packages to be more sensitive, so you may
>> decide to have a different preference on a per-package basis.
>
> Perhaps I've missed something... How do you
On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 10:06:47 AM Alexandre Viau wrote:
> Would you like to amend my proposal? You may suggest something else.
I don't like proposal as posted but I can't focus on amendments now...
> The Debian Python Modules Team uses this policy and currently
> successfully maintains 800 package
On 19/01/16 05:50 PM, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> I don't understan what are you talking about and what Git have to do with it.
> You mean team repositories hosted at Alioth? That seems to be a good
> requirement.
Yes, I agree.
--
Alexandre Viau
av...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPG
On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 04:21:28 PM Alexandre Viau wrote:
> I don't consider a team upload the same as an NMU, as we are a team and
> we work together. A team policy would be addressed to members of the
> teams and not all DDs. However, it is true that the spirit of it is the
> same.
I was trying to s
Package: devscripts
Version: 2.15.10
Severity: wishlist
Usertags: uscan
In the Go Packaging Team[1], we face the issue that the Golang community
does not tag releases for library packages. This practice is encouraged
by the golang tools and by the community. Whether that is a good thing
or not is
Hello,
On 19/01/16 03:50 PM, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
> aviau, in which way would you want people to express their preferences?
See the patch:
> - putting the team in the Maintainers field is a strong statement that
> fully collaborative maintenance is preferred. Anyone can commit to the
> git
aviau, in which way would you want people to express their preferences?
Could we re-use the LowNMU mechanism that Debian has, see
https://wiki.debian.org/LowThresholdNmu? Or is LowNMU different than what
your proposal wants to accomplish? If yes, can you outline the differences
that are important t
FYI: The status of the golang-blackfriday source package
in Debian's testing distribution has changed.
Previous version: 1.4-1
Current version: 1.4-2
--
This email is automatically generated once a day. As the installation of
new packages into testing happens multiple times a day you will
FYI: The status of the golang-github-shurcool-sanitized-anchor-name source
package
in Debian's testing distribution has changed.
Previous version: 0.0~git20151028.0.10ef21a-1
Current version: 0.0~git20151028.0.10ef21a-2
--
This email is automatically generated once a day. As the installat
FYI: The status of the go-md2man source package
in Debian's testing distribution has changed.
Previous version: 1.0.4-3
Current version: 1.0.5-1
--
This email is automatically generated once a day. As the installation of
new packages into testing happens multiple times a day you will recei
Dimitry,
Would you like to amend my proposal? You may suggest something else.
The Debian Python Modules Team uses this policy and currently
successfully maintains 800 packages.
You may not agree with allowing new uploads without communication, but
are you also against me allowing it for my own p
On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 09:38:56 AM Michael Stapelberg wrote:
> Dmitry, thanks for articulating your concerns. AFAICT, you are mostly
> concerned about uploads of new versions.
I was merely giving one example... There might be more situations not
necessarily bound to new uploads. It is just that new
Dmitry, thanks for articulating your concerns. AFAICT, you are mostly
concerned about uploads of new versions.
Would you agree to a no-communication-necessary policy when it only covers
bugfixes/other package maintenance, for example mass-changes such as
getting rid of “Depends: golang-go” on all
On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 12:34:28 AM Alexandre Viau wrote:
> As I have only received positive feedback,
I suppose you can not count my late reply as positive feedback...
> I wanted to go ahead and update the pkg-go policy
Can we wait a little longer for feedback please?
There were no discussion of n
On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 11:06:18 AM Alexandre Viau wrote:
> In order to accelerate cooperation, I would like for us to be able to
> upload other's packages without having to ask for permission.
>
> The current policy states that is is strongly recommended to ask
> maintainers for permission.
That's ri
On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 08:51:22 AM Michael Stapelberg wrote:
> Dmitry, can you please outline what it is that you dislike about the
> suggestion?
Too much freedom to upload without notifying those who are responsible for
package. Lack of notion that Team upload is a rough equivalent to NMU hence
no
17 matches
Mail list logo
